16.08.2010

Schedule 2, Part I, Division 1 of the FOI Act

36.18 Some of the agencies listed in sch 2, Part I, div 1 of the FOI Act—including Aboriginal Land Councils and Land Trusts,[23] the Auditor-General and the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council—are exempt from compliance with the IPPs.[24] They are required, however, to comply with other provisions of the Privacy Act, such as the tax

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Schedule 2, Part II, Division 1 of the FOI Act

36.29 A number of agencies listed in sch 2, Part II, Division 1 of the FOI Actare exempt from the Privacy Act where their acts and practices relate to documents specified in the FOI Act,to the extent that those documents relate to the non-commercial activities of the agencies or of other entities.[41] In relation to

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Federal tribunals

Background35.31 Except for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), federal tribunals are not exempt from the operation of the Privacy Act. Before considering whether they should be exempt, the threshold issue is which agencies fall within the term ‘federal tribunal’. This issue arises because the term ‘tribunal’ is imprecise and difficult to define.[44] Some legislative

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security

Background34.110 The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) is an independent statutory office within the Prime Minister’s portfolio. The IGIS was set up under the IGIS Act to ensure that certain intelligence and security agencies conduct their activities within the law, behave with propriety, comply with ministerial guidelines and directions, and have regard to human

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Complexity of the exemption provisions

33.54 Some commentators have argued that the exemption provisions in the Privacy Act are overly complex.[106] Such complexity sometimes makes it difficult to determine the extent to which individuals and entities are exempt from the Act. 33.55 Certain agencies are, in effect, completely exempt from the operation of the Privacy Act—but this may not always

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Location of the exemption provisions

33.64 The exemptions from the Privacy Act are contained in a number of provisions throughout the Act, including ss 6C–7C, 12A, 12B, 13A–13D and 16E. Setting out these exemptions together in one part of the Act arguably would make the exemption provisions more accessible. For example, exemptions under the FOI Act are set out in

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Privacy Act exemptions

33.3 There are a number of ways in which entities can be exempt, either completely or partially, from the Privacy Act. Under the existing law, entities may be exempt from the Information Privacy Principles (IPPs), the National Privacy Principles (NPPs) (or an approved privacy code),[3] the tax file number provisions or the credit reporting provisions

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

The number and scope of exemptions

The number of exemptions33.37 The Privacy Act has been criticised for the large number of exemptions it contains.[67] In the public sector, there are three classes of agencies—federal courts, ministers and royal commissions—and more than 20 specific, named agencies that are partially or completely exempt from the operation of the Act. In the private sector,

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Interaction with the ‘Use and Disclosure’ principle

31.177 Under the NPPs, an organisation that wants to transfer personal information outside Australia needs to determine whether the disclosure of that information to someone outside Australia will comply with NPP 2 (the Use and Disclosure principle). The organisation then needs to determine whether the transfer will satisfy at least one of the conditions set

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

List of overseas jurisdictions

31.206 The Privacy Act does not provide a definition of what constitutes a ‘substantially similar’ set of principles for the purposes of NPP 9(a).[314] The OPC Review noted that stakeholders had expressed frustration at the lack of guidance regarding the countries whose laws provide adequate protection equivalent to the NPPs. In this situation the onus

Publications

Read more